Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by noting the data is 'public' and by specifying what metadata categories are returned, which helps an agent anticipate access scope and payload contents.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and returns with no filler. The enumerated metadata categories earn their place by clarifying what the tool provides.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only lookup with one fully described parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has enough context to select the tool, supply location_id, and know what kind of data to expect without needing more detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, location_id, is already described as a persistent numeric Atlas location ID. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed given the schema fully documents it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public map-render metadata for a location'), and enumerates concrete contents such as tile templates, bounds, coordinate scheme, dates, provenance, and source-WDL links. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_location or research_location, which focus on location data generally.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for a location' implies the tool is used when you need render-related metadata for a given Atlas location, and the 'public' qualifier suggests it applies to publicly accessible renders. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it name exclusion criteria or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.